From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Metalock Repair Service v. Harman

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Oct 20, 1954
216 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1954)

Opinion

Nos. 12020, 12021.

October 20, 1954.

Corbett, Mahoney Miller, Columbus, Ohio, for appellants.

Wayne S. Gerber, John M. Bowsher, Schmieding Fultz, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN and STEWART, Circuit Judges.


The appeals in these two cases have been heard upon consolidated records, briefs and oral arguments;

And even treating the temporary restraining order entered in each case by the district judge as a temporary injunction in view of his improvident inaction in keeping effective the restraining order in each case for many months without making the restraining order a temporary injunction, it nevertheless follows that, inasmuch as it rested within his discretion to enter an order upon motion directing that the present appellants be made additional parties defendant, such order was not appealable because it was not in actuality a final order;

Accordingly, the two causes are remanded to the United States District Court for further procedure.


Summaries of

Metalock Repair Service v. Harman

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Oct 20, 1954
216 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1954)
Case details for

Metalock Repair Service v. Harman

Case Details

Full title:METALOCK REPAIR SERVICE, Inc., Appellant, v. Hal W. HARMAN, Appellee. Lois…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Oct 20, 1954

Citations

216 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1954)

Citing Cases

Sykes v. Krieger

The denial of a motion to dismiss parties is not a final order. Metalock Repair Service v. Harman, 216 F.2d…

Prop-Jets, Inc. v. Chandler

We next consider Enstrom's motion to dismiss Prop-Jets' appeal from the joinder order. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291…